View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages Part 5

An act in the first year of Henry V. directs that none be chosen knights, citizens, or burgesses, who are not resident within the place for which they are returned on the day of the date of the writ.[279]

This statute apparently indicates a point of time when the deviation from the line of law was frequent enough to attract notice, and yet not so established as to pa.s.s for an unavoidable irregularity. It proceeded, however, from great and general causes, which new laws, in this instance very fortunately, are utterly incompetent to withstand. There cannot be a more apposite proof of the inefficacy of human inst.i.tutions to struggle against the steady course of events than this unlucky statute of Henry V., which is almost a solitary instance in the law of England wherein the principle of desuetude has been avowedly set up against an unrepealed enactment. I am not aware, at least, of any other, which not only the house of commons, but the court of king's bench, has deemed itself at liberty to declare unfit to be observed.[280] Even at the time when it was enacted, the law had probably, as such, very little effect.

But still the plurality of elections were made according to ancient usage, as well as statute, out of the const.i.tuent body. The contrary instances were exceptions to the rule; but exceptions increasing continually, till they subverted the rule itself. Prynne has remarked that we chiefly find Cornish surnames among the representatives of Cornwall, and those of northern families among the returns from the North. Nor do the members for s.h.i.+res and towns seem to have been much interchanged; the names of the former belonging to the most ancient families, while those of the latter have a more plebeian cast.[281] In the reign of Edward IV., and not before, a very few of the burgesses bear the addition of esquire in the returns, which became universal in the middle of the succeeding century.[282]

[Sidenote: Irregularity of elections.]

[Sidenote: Influence of the crown upon them.]

Even county elections seem in general, at least in the fourteenth century, to have been ill-attended and left to the influence of a few powerful and active persons. A pet.i.tioner against an undue return in the 12th of Edward II. complains that, whereas he had been chosen knight for Devon by Sir William Martin, bishop of Exeter, with the consent of the county, yet the sheriff had returned another.[283] In several indentures of a much later date a few persons only seem to have been concerned in the election, though the a.s.sent of the community be expressed.[284] These irregularities, which it would be exceedingly erroneous to convert, with Hume, into lawful customs, resulted from the abuses of the sheriff's power, which, when parliament sat only for a few weeks with its hands full of business, were almost sure to escape with impunity. They were sometimes also countenanced, or rather instigated, by the crown, which, having recovered in Edward II.'s reign the prerogative of naming the sheriffs, surrendered by an act of his father,[285] filled that office with its creatures, and constantly disregarded the statute forbidding their continuance beyond a year. Without searching for every pa.s.sage that might ill.u.s.trate the interference of the crown in elections, I will mention two or three leading instances. When Richard II. was meditating to overturn the famous commission of reform, he sent for some of the sheriffs, and required them to permit no knight or burgess to be elected to the next parliament without the approbation of the king and his council. The sheriffs replied that the commons would maintain their ancient privilege of electing their own representatives.[286] The parliament of 1397, which attainted his enemies and left the const.i.tution at his mercy, was chosen, as we are told, by dint of intimidation and influence.[287] Thus also that of Henry VI., held at Coventry in 1460, wherein the duke of York and his party were attainted, is said to have been unduly returned by the like means. This is rendered probable by a pet.i.tion presented to it by the sheriffs, praying indemnity for all which they had done in relation thereto contrary to law.[288] An act pa.s.sed according to their prayer, and in confirmation of elections. A few years before, in 1455, a singular letter under the king's signet is addressed to the sheriffs, reciting that "we be enfourmed there is busy labour made in sondry wises by certaine persons for the chesyng of the said knights, ... of which labour we marvaille greatly, insomuche as it is nothing to the honour of the laborers, but ayenst their wors.h.i.+p; it is also ayenst the lawes of the lande," with more to that effect; and enjoining the sheriff to let elections be free and the peace kept.[289] There was certainly no reason to wonder that a parliament, which was to s.h.i.+ft the virtual sovereignty of the kingdom into the hands of one whose claims were known to extend much further, should be the object of tolerably warm contests. Thus in the Paston letters we find several proofs of the importance attached to parliamentary elections by the highest n.o.bility.[290]

[Sidenote: Const.i.tution of the house of lords.]

The house of lords, as we left it in the reign of Henry III., was entirely composed of such persons holding lands by barony as were summoned by particular writ of parliament.[291] Tenure and summons were both essential at this time in order to render any one a lord of parliament--the first by the ancient const.i.tution of our feudal monarchy from the Conquest, the second by some regulation or usage of doubtful origin, which was thoroughly established before the conclusion of Henry III.'s reign. This produced, of course, a very marked difference between the greater and the lesser or unparliamentary barons. The tenure of the latter, however, still subsisted, and, though too inconsiderable to be members of the legislature, they paid relief as barons, they might be challenged on juries, and, as I presume, by parity of reasoning, were ent.i.tled to trial by their peerage. These lower barons, or more commonly tenants by parcels of baronies,[292] may be dimly traced to the latter years of Edward III.[293] But many of them were successively summoned to parliament, and thus recovered the former l.u.s.tre of their rank, while the rest fell gradually into the station of commoners, as tenants by simple knight-service.

[Sidenote: Baronial tenure required for lords spiritual.]

As tenure without summons did not ent.i.tle any one to the privileges of a lord of parliament, so no spiritual person at least ought to have been summoned without baronial tenure. The prior of St. James at Northampton, having been summoned in the twelfth of Edward II., was discharged upon his pet.i.tion, because he held nothing of the king by barony, but only in frankalmoign. The prior of Bridlington, after frequent summonses, was finally left out, with an entry made in the roll that he held nothing of the king. The abbot of Leicester had been called to fifty parliaments; yet, in the 25th of Edward III., he obtained a charter of perpetual exemption, reciting that he held no lands or tenements of the crown by barony or any such service as bound him to attend parliaments or councils.[294] But great irregularities prevailed in the rolls of chancery, from which the writs to spiritual and temporal peers were taken--arising in part, perhaps, from negligence, in part from wilful perversion; so that many abbots and priors, who like these had no baronial tenure, were summoned at times and subsequently omitted, of whose actual exemption we have no record. Out of one hundred and twenty-two abbots and forty-one priors who at some time or other sat in parliament, but twenty-five of the former and two of the latter were constantly summoned: the names of forty occur only once, and those of thirty-six others not, more than five times.[295] Their want of baronial tenure, in all probability, prevented the repet.i.tion of writs which accident or occasion had caused to issue.[296]

[Sidenote: Barons called by writ.]

The ancient temporal peers are supposed to have been intermingled with persons who held nothing of the crown by barony, but attended in parliament solely by virtue of the king's prerogative exercised in the writ of summons.[297] These have been called barons by writ; and it seems to be denied by no one that, at least under the first three Edwards, there were some of this description in parliament. But after all the labours of Dugdale and others in tracing the genealogies of our ancient aristocracy, it is a problem of much difficulty to distinguish these from the territorial barons. As the latter honours descended to female heirs, they pa.s.sed into new families and new names, so that we can hardly decide of one summoned for the first time to parliament that he did not inherit the possession of a feudal barony. Husbands of baronial heiresses were frequently summoned in their wives' right, but by their own names. They even sat after the death of their wives, as tenants by the courtesy.[298] Again, as lands, though not the subject of frequent transfer, were, especially before the statute de donis, not inalienable, we cannot positively a.s.sume that all the right heirs of original barons had preserved those estates upon which their barony had depended.[299] If we judge, however, by the lists of those summoned, according to the best means in our power, it will appear, according at least to one of our most learned investigators of this subject, that the regular barons by tenure were all along very far more numerous than those called by writ; and that from the end of Edward III.'s reign no spiritual persons, and few if any laymen, except peers created by patent, were summoned to parliament who did not hold territorial baronies.[300]

With respect to those who were indebted for their seats among the lords to the king's writ, there are two material questions: whether they acquired an hereditary n.o.bility by virtue of the writ; and, if this be determined against them, whether they had a decisive or merely a deliberative voice in the house. Now, for the first question, it seems that, if the writ of summons conferred an estate of inheritance, it must have done so either by virtue of its terms or by established construction and precedent. But the writ contains no words by which such an estate can in law be limited; it summons the person addressed to attend in parliament in order to give his advice on the public business, but by no means implies that his advice will be required of his heirs, or even of himself on any other occasion. The strongest expression is "vobisc.u.m et _caeteris_ praelatis, magnatibus et proceribus," which appears to place the party on a sort of level with the peers. But the words magnates and proceres are used very largely in ancient language, and, down to the time of Edward III., comprehend the king's ordinary council, as well as his barons. Nor can these, at any rate, be construed to pa.s.s an inheritance, which in the grant of a private person, much more of a king, would require express words of limitation.

In a single instance, the writ of summons to Sir Henry de Bromflete (27 H. VI.), we find these remarkable words: Volumus enim vos et haeredes vestros masculos de corpore vestro legitime exeuntes barones de Vescy existere. But this Sir Henry de Bromflete was the lineal heir of the ancient barony de Vesci.[301] And if it were true that the writ of summons conveyed a barony of itself, there seems no occasion to have introduced these extraordinary words of creation or revival. Indeed there is less necessity to urge these arguments from the nature of the writ, because the modern doctrine, which is entirely opposite to what has here been suggested, a.s.serts that no one is enn.o.bled by the mere summons unless he has rendered it operative by taking his seat in parliament; distinguis.h.i.+ng it in this from a patent of peerage, which requires no act of the party for its completion.[302] But this distinction could be supported by nothing except long usage. If, however, we recur to the practice of former times, we shall find that no less than ninety-eight laymen were summoned once only to parliament, none of their names occurring afterwards; and fifty others two, three, or four times. Some were constantly summoned during their lives, none of whose posterity ever attained that honour.[303] The course of proceeding, therefore, previous to the accession of Henry VII., by no means warrants the doctrine which was held in the latter end of Elizabeth's reign,[304] and has since been too fully established by repeated precedents to be shaken by any reasoning. The foregoing observations relate to the more ancient history of our const.i.tution, and to the plain matter of fact as to those times, without considering what political cause there might be to prevent the crown from introducing occasional counsellors into the house of lords.[305]

[Sidenote: Bannerets summoned to house of lords.]

It is manifest by many pa.s.sages in these records that bannerets were frequently summoned to the upper house of parliament, const.i.tuting a distinct cla.s.s inferior to barons, though generally named together, and ultimately confounded, with them.[306] Barons are distinguished by the appellation of Sire, bannerets have only that of Monsieur, as le Sire de Berkeley, le Sire de Fitzwalter, Monsieur Richard Scrop, Monsieur Richard Stafford. In the 7th of Richard II. Thomas Camoys having been elected knight of the s.h.i.+re for Surrey, the king addresses a writ to the sheriff, directing him to proceed to a new election, c.u.m hujusmodi banneretti ante haec tempora in milites comitatus ratione alicujus parliamenti eligi minime consueverunt. Camoys was summoned by writ to the same parliament. It has been inferred from hence by Selden that he was a baron, and that the word banneret is merely synonymous.[307] But this is contradicted by too many pa.s.sages. Bannerets had so far been considered as commoners some years before that they could not be challenged on juries.[308] But they seem to have been more highly estimated at the date of this writ.

The distinction, however, between barons and bannerets died away by degrees. In the 2nd of Henry VI.[309] Scrop of Bolton is called le Sire de Scrop; a proof that he was then reckoned among the barons. The bannerets do not often appear afterwards by that appellation as members of the upper house. Bannerets, or, as they are called, banrents, are enumerated among the orders of Scottish n.o.bility in the year 1428, when the statute directing the common lairds or tenants in capite to send representatives was enacted; and a modern historian justly calls them an intermediate order between the peers and lairds.[310] Perhaps a consideration of these facts, which have frequently been overlooked, may tend in some measure to explain the occasional discontinuance, or sometimes the entire cessation, of writs of summons to an individual or his descendants; since we may conceive that bannerets, being of a dignity much inferior to that of barons, had no such inheritable n.o.bility in their blood as rendered their parliamentary privileges a matter of right. But whether all those who without any baronial tenure received their writs of summons to parliament belonged to the order of bannerets I cannot pretend to affirm; though some pa.s.sages in the rolls might rather lead to such a supposition.[311]

The second question relates to the right of suffrage possessed by these temporary members of the upper house. It might seem plausible certainly to conceive that the real and ancient aristocracy would not permit their powers to be impaired by numbering the votes of such as the king might please to send among them, however they might allow them to a.s.sist in their debates. But I am much more inclined to suppose that they were in all respects on an equality with other peers during their actual attendance in parliament. For,--1. They are summoned by the same writ as the rest, and their names are confused among them in the lists; whereas the judges and ordinary counsellors are called by a separate writ, vobisc.u.m et caeteris de consilio nostro, and their names are entered after those of the peers.[312] 2. Some, who do not appear to have held land-baronies, were constantly summoned from father to son, and thus became hereditary lords of parliament through a sort of prescriptive right, which probably was the foundation of extending the same privilege afterwards to the descendants of all who had once been summoned. There is no evidence that the family of Scrope, for example, which was eminent under Edward III. and subsequent kings, and gave rise to two branches, the lords of Bolton and Masham, inherited any territorial honour.[313]

3. It is very difficult to obtain any direct proof as to the right of voting, because the rolls of parliament do not take notice of any debates; but there happens to exist one remarkable pa.s.sage in which the suffrages of the lords are individually specified. In the first parliament of Henry IV. they were requested by the earl of Northumberland to declare what should be done with the late king Richard. The lords then present agreed that he should be detained in safe custody; and on account of the importance of this matter it seems to have been thought necessary to enter their names upon the roll in these words:--The names of the lords concurring in their answer to the said question here follow; to wit, the archbishop of Canterbury and fourteen other bishops; seven abbots; the prince of Wales, the duke of York, and six earls; nineteen barons, styled thus--le Sire de Roos, or le Sire de Grey de Ruthyn. Thus far the entry has nothing singular; but then follow these nine names: Monsieur Henry Percy, Monsieur Richard Scrop, le Sire Fitz-hugh, le Sire de Bergeveny, le Sire de Lomley, le Baron de Greystock, le Baron de Hilton, Monsieur Thomas Erpyngham, chamberlayn, Monsieur Mayhewe Gournay. Of these nine five were undoubtedly barons, from whatever cause misplaced in order. Scrop was summoned by writ; but his t.i.tle of Monsieur, by which he is invariably denominated, would of itself create a strong suspicion that he was no baron, and in another place we find him reckoned among the bannerets.

The other three do not appear to have been summoned, their writs probably being lost. One of them, Sir Thomas Erpyngham, a statesman well known in the history of those times, is said to have been a banneret;[314] certainly he was not a baron. It is not unlikely that the two others, Henry Percy (Hotspur) and Gournay, an officer of the household, were also bannerets; they cannot at least be supposed to be barons, neither were they ever summoned to any subsequent parliament.

Yet in the only record we possess of votes actually given in the house of lords they appear to have been reckoned among the rest.[315]

[Sidenote: Creation of peers by statute.]

The next method of conferring an honour of peerage was by creation in parliament. This was adopted by Edward III. in several instances, though always, I believe, for the higher t.i.tles of duke or earl. It is laid down by lawyers that whatever the king is said in an ancient record to have done in full parliament must be taken to have proceeded from the whole legislature. As a question of fact, indeed, it might be doubted whether, in many proceedings where this expression is used, and especially in the creation of peers, the a.s.sent of the commons was specifically and deliberately given. It seems hardly consonant to the circ.u.mstances of their order under Edward III. to suppose their sanction necessary in what seemed so little to concern their interest. Yet there is an instance in the fortieth year of that prince where the lords individually, and the commons with one voice, are declared to have consented, at the king's request, that the lord de Coucy, who had married his daughter, and was already possessed of estates in England, might be raised to the dignity of an earl, whenever the king should determine what earldom he would confer upon him.[316] Under Richard II.

the marquisate of Dublin is granted to Vere by full consent of all the estates. But this instrument, besides the unusual name of dignity, contained an extensive jurisdiction and authority over Ireland.[317] In the same reign Lancaster was made duke of Guienne, and the duke of York's son created earl of Rutland, to hold during his father's life.

The consent of the lords and commons is expressed in their patents, and they are entered upon the roll of parliament.[318] Henry V. created his brothers dukes of Bedford and Gloucester by request of the lords and commons.[319] But the patent of Sir John Cornwall, in the tenth of Henry VI., declares him to be made lord Fanhope, "by consent of the lords, in the presence of the three estates of parliament;" as if it were designed to show that the commons had not a legislative voice in the creation of peers.[320]

[Sidenote: And by patent.]

The mention I have made of creating peers by act of parliament has partly antic.i.p.ated the modern form of letters patent, with which the other was nearly allied. The first instance of a barony conferred by patent was in the tenth year of Richard II., when Sir John Holt, a judge of the Common Pleas, was created lord Beauchamp of Kidderminster. Holt's patent, however, pa.s.sed while Richard was endeavouring to act in an arbitrary manner; and in fact he never sat in parliament, having been attainted in that of the next year by the name of Sir John Holt. In a number of subsequent patents down to the reign of Henry VII. the a.s.sent of parliament is expressed, though it frequently happens that no mention of it occurs in the parliamentary roll. And in some instances the roll speaks to the consent of parliament where the patent itself is silent.[321]

[Sidenote: Clergy summoned to attend parliament.]

It is now perhaps scarcely known by many persons not unversed in the const.i.tution of their country, that, besides the bishops and baronial abbots, the inferior clergy were regularly summoned at every parliament.

In the writ of summons to a bishop he is still directed to cause the dean of his cathedral church, the archdeacon of his diocese, with one proctor from the chapter of the former, and two from the body of his clergy, to attend with him at the place of meeting. This might, by an in.o.bservant reader, be confounded with the summons to the convocation, which is composed of the same const.i.tuent parts, and, by modern usage, is made to a.s.semble on the same day. But it may easily be distinguished by this difference--that the convocation is provincial, and summoned by the metropolitans of Canterbury and York; whereas the clause commonly denominated praemunientes (from its first word) in the writ to each bishop proceeds from the crown, and enjoins the attendance of the clergy at the national council of parliament.[322]

The first unequivocal instance of representatives appearing for the lower clergy is in the year 1255, when they are expressly named by the author of the Annals of Burton.[323] They preceded, therefore, by a few years the house of commons; but the introduction of each was founded upon the same principle. The king required the clergy's money, but dared not take it without their consent.[324] In the double parliament, if so we may call it, summoned in the eleventh of Edward I. to meet at Northampton and York, and divided according to the two ecclesiastical provinces, the proctors of chapters for each province, but not those of the diocesan clergy, were summoned through a royal writ addressed to the archbishops. Upon account of the absence of any deputies from the lower clergy these a.s.semblies refused to grant a subsidy. The proctors of both descriptions appear to have been summoned by the praemunientes clause in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 28th, and 35th years of the same king; but in some other parliaments of his reign the praemunientes clause is omitted.[325]

The same irregularity continued under his successor; and the constant usage of inserting this clause in the bishop's writ is dated from the twenty-eighth of Edward III.[326]

It is highly probable that Edward I., whose legislative mind was engaged in modelling the const.i.tution on a comprehensive scheme, designed to render the clergy an effective branch of parliament, however their continual resistance may have defeated the accomplishment of this intention.[327] We find an entry upon the roll of his parliament at Carlisle, containing a list of all the proctors deputed to it by the several dioceses of the kingdom. This may be reckoned a clear proof of their parliamentary attendance during his reign under the praemunientes clause; since the province of Canterbury could not have been present in convocation at a city beyond its limits.[328] And indeed, if we were to found our judgment merely on the language used in these writs, it would be hard to resist a very strange paradox, that the clergy were not only one of the three estates of the realm, but as essential a member of the legislature by their representatives as the commons.[329] They are summoned in the earliest year extant (23 E. I.) ad tractandum, ordinandum et faciendum n.o.bisc.u.m, et c.u.m caeteris praelatis, proceribus, ac aliis incolis regni nostri; in that of the next year, ad ordinandum de quant.i.tate et modo subsidii; in that of the twenty-eighth, ad faciendum et consentiendum his, quae tunc de communi consilio ordinari contigerit. In later times it ran sometimes ad faciendum et consentiendum, sometimes only ad consentiendum; which, from the fifth of Richard II., has been the term invariably adopted.[330] Now, as it is usual to infer from the same words, when introduced into the writs for election of the commons, that they possessed an enacting power, implied in the words ad faciendum, or at least to deduce the necessity of their a.s.sent from the words ad consentiendum, it should seem to follow that the clergy were invested, as a branch of the parliament, with rights no less extensive. It is to be considered how we can reconcile these apparent attributes of political power with the unquestionable facts that almost all laws, even while they continued to attend, were pa.s.sed without their concurrence, and that, after some time, they ceased altogether to comply with the writ.[331]

The solution of this difficulty can only be found in that estrangement from the common law and the temporal courts which the clergy throughout Europe were disposed to effect. In this country their ambition defeated its own ends; and while they endeavoured by privileges and immunities to separate themselves from the people, they did not perceive that the line of demarcation thus strongly traced would cut them off from the sympathy of common interests. Everything which they could call of ecclesiastical cognizance was drawn into their own courts; while the administration of what they contemned as a barbarous system, the temporal law of the land, fell into the hands of lay judges. But these were men not less subtle, not less ambitious, not less attached to their profession than themselves; and wielding, as they did in the courts of Westminster, the delegated sceptre of judicial sovereignty, they soon began to control the spiritual jurisdiction, and to establish the inherent supremacy of the common law. From this time an inveterate animosity subsisted between the two courts, the vestiges of which have only been effaced by the liberal wisdom of modern ages. The general love of the common law, however, with the great weight of its professors in the king's council and in parliament, kept the clergy in surprising subjection. None of our kings after Henry III. were bigots; and the constant tone of the commons serves to show that the English nation was thoroughly averse to ecclesiastical influence, whether of their own church or the see of Rome.

It was natural, therefore, to withstand the interference of the clergy summoned to parliament in legislation, as much as that of the spiritual court in temporal jurisdiction. With the ordinary subjects, indeed, of legislation they had little concern. The oppressions of the king's purveyors, or escheators, or officers of the forests, the abuses or defects of the common law, the regulations necessary for trading towns and seaports, were matters that touched them not, and to which their consent was never required. And, as they well knew there was no design in summoning their attendance but to obtain money, it was with great reluctance that they obeyed the royal writ, which was generally obliged to be enforced by an archiepiscopal mandate.[332] Thus, instead of an a.s.sembly of deputies from an estate of the realm, they became a synod or convocation. And it seems probable that in most, if not all, instances where the clergy are said in the roll of parliament to have presented their pet.i.tions, or are otherwise mentioned as a deliberative body, we should suppose the convocation alone of the province of Canterbury to be intended.[333] For that of York seems to have been always considered as inferior, and even ancillary, to the greater province, voting subsidies, and even a.s.senting to canons, without deliberation, in compliance with the example of Canterbury;[334] the convocation of which province consequently a.s.sumed the importance of a national council. But in either point of view the proceedings of this ecclesiastical a.s.sembly, collateral in a certain sense to parliament, yet very intimately connected with it, whether sitting by virtue of the praemunientes clause or otherwise, deserve some notice in a const.i.tutional history.

In the sixth year of Edward III. the proctors of the clergy are specially mentioned as present at the speech p.r.o.nounced by the king's commissioner, and retired, along with the prelates, to consult together upon the business submitted to their deliberation. They proposed accordingly a sentence of excommunication against disturbers of the peace, which was a.s.sented to by the lords and commons. The clergy are said afterwards to have had leave, as well as the knights, citizens, and burgesses, to return to their homes; the prelates and peers continuing with the king.[335] This appearance of the clergy in full parliament is not, perhaps, so decisively proved by any later record. But in the eighteenth of the same reign several pet.i.tions of the clergy are granted by the king and his council, entered on the roll of parliament, and even the statute roll, and in some respects are still part of our law.[336]

To these it seems highly probable that the commons gave no a.s.sent; and they may be reckoned among the other infringements of their legislative rights. It is remarkable that in the same parliament the commons, as if apprehensive of what was in preparation, besought the king that no pet.i.tion of the clergy might be granted till he and his council should have considered whether it would turn to the prejudice of the lords or commons.[337]

A series of pet.i.tions from the clergy, in the twenty-fifth of Edward.

III., had not probably any real a.s.sent of the commons, though it is once mentioned in the enacting words, when they were drawn into a statute.[338] Indeed the pet.i.tions correspond so little with the general sentiment of hostility towards ecclesiastical privileges manifested by the lower house of parliament, that they would not easily have obtained its acquiescence. The convocation of the province of Canterbury presented several pet.i.tions in the fiftieth year of the same king, to which they received an a.s.senting answer; but they are not found in the statute-book. This, however, produced the following remonstrance from the commons at the next parliament: "Also the commons beseech their lord the king, that no statute nor ordinance be made at the pet.i.tion of the clergy, unless by a.s.sent of your commons; and that your commons be not bound by any const.i.tutions which they make for their own profit without the commons' a.s.sent. For they will not be bound by any of your statutes or ordinances made without their a.s.sent."[339] The king evaded a direct answer to this pet.i.tion. But the province of Canterbury did not the less present their own grievances to the king in that parliament, and two among the statutes of the year seem to be founded upon no other authority.[340]

In the first session of Richard II. the prelates and clergy of both provinces are said to have presented their schedule of pet.i.tions which appear upon the roll, and three of which are the foundation of statutes una.s.sented to in all probability by the commons.[341] If the clergy of both provinces were actually present, as is here a.s.serted, it must of course have been as a house of parliament, and not of convocation. It rather seems, so far as we can trust to the phraseology of records, that the clergy sat also in a national a.s.sembly under the king's writ in the second year of the same king.[342] Upon other occasions during the same reign, where the representatives of the clergy are alluded to as a deliberative body, sitting at the same time with the parliament, it is impossible to ascertain its const.i.tution; and, indeed, even from those already cited we cannot draw any positive inference.[343] But whether in convocation or in parliament, they certainly formed a legislative council in ecclesiastical matters by the advice and consent of which alone, without that of the commons (I can say nothing as to the lords), Edward III. and even Richard II. enacted laws to bind the laity. I have mentioned in a different place a still more conspicuous instance of this a.s.sumed prerogative; namely, the memorable statute against heresy in the second of Henry IV.; which can hardly be deemed anything else than an infringement of the rights of parliament, more clearly established at that time than at the accession of Richard II. Pet.i.tions of the commons relative to spiritual matters, however frequently proposed, in few or no instances obtained the king's a.s.sent so as to pa.s.s into statutes, unless approved by the convocation.[344] But, on the other hand, scarcely any temporal laws appear to have pa.s.sed by the concurrence of the clergy. Two instances only, so far as I know, are on record: the parliament held in the eleventh of Richard II. is annulled by that in the twenty-first of his reign, "with the a.s.sent of the lords spiritual and temporal, _and the proctors of the clergy_, and the commons;"[345]

and the statute entailing the crown on the children of Henry IV. is said to be enacted on the pet.i.tion of the prelates, n.o.bles, clergy, and commons.[346] Both these were stronger exertions of legislative authority than ordinary acts of parliament, and were very likely to be questioned in succeeding times.

[Sidenote: Jurisdiction of the king's council.]

The supreme judicature, which had been exercised by the king's court, was diverted, about the reign of John, into three channels; the tribunals of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and the Exchequer.[347] These became the regular fountains of justice, which soon almost absorbed the provincial jurisdictions of the sheriff and lord of manor. But the original inst.i.tution, having been designed for ends of state, police, and revenue, full as much as for the determination of private suits, still preserved the most eminent parts of its authority. For the king's ordinary or privy council, which is the usual style from the reign of Edward I., seems to have been no other than the king's court (curia regis) of older times, being composed of the same persons, and having, in a princ.i.p.al degree, the same subjects of deliberation. It consisted of the chief ministers; as the chancellor, treasurer, lord steward, lord admiral, lord marshal, the keeper of the privy seal, the chamberlain, treasurer, and comptroller of the household, the chancellor of the exchequer, the master of the wardrobe; and of the judges, king's serjeant, and attorney-general, the master of the rolls, and justices in eyre, who at that time were not the same as the judges at Westminster.

When all these were called together, it was a full council; but where the business was of a more contracted nature, those only who were fittest to advise were summoned; the chancellor and judges for matters of law; the officers of state for what concerned the revenue or household.[348]

The business of this council, out of parliament, may be reduced to two heads; its deliberative office as a council of advice, and its decisive power of jurisdiction. With respect to the first, it obviously comprehended all subjects of political deliberation, which were usually referred to it by the king: this being in fact the administration or governing council of state, the distinction of a cabinet being introduced in comparatively modern times. But there were likewise a vast number of pet.i.tions continually presented to the council, upon which they proceeded no further than to sort, as it were, and forward them by endors.e.m.e.nt to the proper courts, or advise the suitor what remedy he had to seek. Thus some pet.i.tions are answered, "this cannot be done without a new law;" some were turned over to the regular court, as the chancery or king's bench; some of greater moment were endorsed to be heard "before the great council;" some, concerning the king's interest, were referred to the chancery, or select persons of the council.

The coercive authority exercised by this standing council of the king was far more important. It may be divided into acts, legislative and judicial. As for the first, many ordinances were made in council; sometimes upon request of the commons in parliament, who felt themselves better qualified to state a grievance than a remedy; sometimes without any pretence, unless the usage of government, in the infancy of our const.i.tution, may be thought to afford one. These were always of a temporary or partial nature, and were considered as regulations not sufficiently important to demand a new statute. Thus, in the second year of Richard II., the council, after hearing read the statute-roll of an act recently pa.s.sed, confirming a criminal jurisdiction in certain cases upon justices of the peace, declared that the intention of parliament, though not clearly expressed therein, had been to extend that jurisdiction to certain other cases omitted, which accordingly they cause to be inserted in the commissions made to these justices under the great seal.[349] But they frequently so much exceeded what the growing spirit of public liberty would permit, that it gave rise to complaint in parliament. The commons pet.i.tion in 13 R. II. that "neither the chancellor nor the king's council, after the close of parliament, may make any ordinance against the common law, or the ancient customs of the land, or the statutes made heretofore or to be made in this parliament; but that the common law have its course for all the people, and no judgment be rendered without due legal process." The king answers, "Let it be done as has been usual heretofore, saving the prerogative; and if any one is aggrieved, let him show it specially, and right shall be done him."[350] This unsatisfactory answer proves the arbitrary spirit in which Richard was determined to govern.

The judicial power of the council was in some instances founded upon particular acts of parliament, giving it power to hear and determine certain causes. Many pet.i.tions likewise were referred to it from parliament, especially where they were left unanswered by reason of a dissolution. But, independently of this delegated authority, it is certain that the king's council did anciently exercise, as well out of parliament as in it, a very great jurisdiction, both in causes criminal and civil. Some, however, have contended, that whatever they did in this respect was illegal, and an encroachment upon the common law and Magna Charta. And be the common law what it may, it seems an indisputable violation of the charter in its most admirable and essential article, to drag men in questions of their freehold or liberty before a tribunal which neither granted them a trial by their peers nor always respected the law of the land. Against this usurpation the patriots of those times never ceased to lift their voices. A statute of the fifth year of Edward III. provides that no man shall be attached, nor his property seized into the king's hands, against the form of the great charter and the law of the land. In the twenty-fifth of the same king it was enacted, that "none shall be taken by pet.i.tion or suggestion to the king or his council, unless it be by indictment or presentment, or by writ original at the common law, nor shall be put out of his franchise or freehold, unless he be duly put to answer, and forejudged of the same by due course of law."[351] This was repeated in a short act of the twenty-eighth of his reign;[352] but both, in all probability, were treated with neglect; for another was pa.s.sed some years afterwards, providing that no man shall be put to answer without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original according to the old law of the land. The answer to the pet.i.tion whereon this statute is grounded, in the parliament-roll, expressly declares this to be an article of the great charter.[353] Nothing, however, would prevail on the council to surrender so eminent a power, and, though usurped, yet of so long a continuance. Cases of arbitrary imprisonment frequently occurred, and were remonstrated against by the commons. The right of every freeman in that cardinal point was as undubitable, legally speaking, as at this day; but the courts of law were afraid to exercise their remedial functions in defiance of so powerful a tribunal.

After the accession of the Lancastrian family, these, like other grievances, became rather less frequent but the commons remonstrate several times, even in the minority of Henry VI., against the council's interference in matters cognizable at common law.[354] In these later times the civil jurisdiction of the council was princ.i.p.ally exercised in conjunction with the chancery, and accordingly they are generally named together in the complaint. The chancellor having the great seal in his custody, the council usually borrowed its process from his court. This was returnable into chancery even where the business was depending before the council. Nor were the two jurisdictions less intimately allied in their character, each being of an equitable nature; and equity, as then practised, being little else than innovation and encroachment on the course of law. This part, long since the most important of the chancellor's judicial function, cannot be traced beyond the time of Richard II., when, the practice of feoffments to uses having been introduced, without any legal remedy to secure the cestui que use, or usufructuary, against his feoffees, the court of chancery undertook to enforce this species of contract by process of its own.[355]

Such was the nature of the king's ordinary council in itself, as the organ of his executive sovereignty, and such the jurisdiction which it habitually exercised. But it is also to be considered in its relation to the parliament, during whose session, either singly or in conjunction with the lords' house, it was particularly conspicuous. The great officers of state, whether peers or not, the judges, the king's serjeant, and attorney-general, were, from the earliest times, as the latter still continue to be, summoned by special writs to the upper house. But while the writ of a peer runs ad tractandum n.o.bisc.u.m et c.u.m caeteris praelatis, magnatibus et proceribus, that directed to one of the judges is only ad tractandum n.o.bisc.u.m et c.u.m caeteris de consilio nostro; and the seats of the latter are upon the woolsacks at one extremity of the house.

In the reigns of Edward I. and II. the council appear to have been the regular advisers of the king in pa.s.sing laws to which the houses of parliament had a.s.sented. The preambles of most statutes during this period express their concurrence. Thus the statute Westm. I. is said to be the act of the king by his council, and by the a.s.sent of archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and all the commonalty of the realm being hither summoned. The statute of escheators, 29 E. I., is said to be agreed by the council, enumerating their names, all whom appear to be judges or public officers. Still more striking conclusions are to be drawn from the pet.i.tions addressed to the council by both houses of parliament. In the eighth of Edward II. there are four pet.i.tions from the commons to the king and his council, one from the lords alone, and one in which both appear to have joined. Later parliaments of the same reign present us with several more instances of the like nature. Thus in 18 E. II. a pet.i.tion begins, "To our lord the king, and to his council, the archbishops, bishops, prelates, earls, barons, and others of the commonalty of England, show," &c.[356]

But from the beginning of Edward III.'s reign it seems that the council and the lords' house in parliament were often blended together into one a.s.sembly. This was denominated the great council, being the lords spiritual and temporal, with the king's ordinary council annexed to them, as a council within a council. And even in much earlier times the lords, as hereditary counsellors, were, either whenever they thought fit to attend, or on special summonses by the king (it is hard to say which), a.s.sistant members of this council, both for advice and for jurisdiction. This double capacity of the peerage, as members of the parliament or legislative a.s.sembly and of the deliberative and judicial council, throws a very great obscurity over the subject. However, we find that private pet.i.tions for redress were, even under Edward I., presented to the lords in parliament as much as to the ordinary council.

The parliament was considered a high court of justice, where relief was to be given in cases where the course of law was obstructed, as well as where it was defective. Hence the intermission of parliaments was looked upon as a delay of justice, and their annual meeting is demanded upon that ground. "The king," says Fleta, "has his court in his council, in his parliaments, in the presence of bishops, earls, barons, lords, and other wise men, where the doubtful cases of judgments are resolved, and new remedies are provided against new injuries, and justice is rendered to every man according to his desert."[357] In the third year of Edward II. receivers of pet.i.tions began to be appointed at the opening of every parliament, who usually transmitted them to the ordinary, but in some instances to the great council. These receivers were commonly three for England, and three for Ireland, Wales, Gascony, and other foreign dominions. There were likewise two corresponding cla.s.ses of auditors or triers of pet.i.tions. These consisted partly of bishops or peers, partly of judges and other members of the council; and they seem to have been inst.i.tuted in order to disburthen the council by giving answers to some pet.i.tions. But about the middle of Edward III.'s time they ceased to act juridically in this respect, and confined themselves to transmitting pet.i.tions to the lords of the council.

The great council, according to the definition we have given, consisting of the lords spiritual and temporal, in conjunction with the ordinary council, or, in other words, of all who were severally summoned to parliament, exercised a considerable jurisdiction, as well civil as criminal. In this jurisdiction it is the opinion of Sir M. Hale that the council, though not peers, had right of suffrage; an opinion very probable, when we recollect that the council by themselves, both in and out of parliament, possessed in fact a judicial authority little inferior; and that the king's delegated sovereignty in the administration of justice, rather than any intrinsic right of the peerage, is the foundation on which the judicature of the lords must be supported. But in the time of Edward III. or Richard II. the lords, by their ascendency, threw the judges and rest of the council into shade, and took the decisive jurisdiction entirely to themselves, making use of their former colleagues but as a.s.sistants and advisers, as they still continue to be held in all the judicial proceedings of that house.[358]

Those statutes which restrain the king's ordinary council from disturbing men in their freehold rights, or questioning them for misdemeanours, have an equal application to the lords' house in parliament, though we do not frequently meet with complaints of the encroachments made by that a.s.sembly. There was, however, one cla.s.s of cases tacitly excluded from the operation of those acts, in which the coercive jurisdiction of this high tribunal had great convenience; namely, where the ordinary course of justice was so much obstructed by the defending party, through riots, combinations of maintenance, or overawing influence, that no inferior court would find its process obeyed. Those ages, disfigured in their quietest season by rapine and oppression, afforded no small number of cases that called for this interposition of a paramount authority.[359] Another indubitable branch of this jurisdiction was in writs of error; but it may be observed that their determination was very frequently left to a select committee of peers and councillors. These, too, cease almost entirely with Henry IV.; and were scarcely revived till the accession of James I.

Some instances occur in the reign of Edward III. where records have been brought into parliament, and annulled with a.s.sent of the commons as well as the rest of the legislature.[360] But these were attainders of treason, which it seemed gracious and solemn to reverse in the most authentic manner. Certainly the commons had neither by the nature of our const.i.tution nor the practice of parliament any right of intermeddling in judicature, save where something was required beyond the existing law, or where, as in the statute of treasons, an authority of that kind was particularly reserved to both houses. This is fully acknowledged by themselves in the first year of Henry IV.[361] But their influence upon the balance of government became so commanding in a few years afterwards, that they contrived, as has been mentioned already, to have pet.i.tions directed to them, rather than to the lords or council, and to transmit them, either with a tacit approbation or in the form of acts, to the upper house. Perhaps this encroachment of the commons may have contributed to the disuse of the lords' jurisdiction, who would rather relinquish their ancient and honourable but laborious function than share it with such bold usurpers.

[Sidenote: General character of the government in these ages.]

Although the restraining hand of parliament was continually growing more effectual, and the notions of legal right acquiring more precision, from the time of Magna Charta to the civil wars under Henry VI., we may justly say that the general tone of administration was not a little arbitrary. The whole fabric of English liberty rose step by step, through much toil and many sacrifices, each generation adding some new security to the work, and trusting that posterity would perfect the labour as well as enjoy the reward. A time, perhaps, was even then foreseen in the visions of generous hope, by the brave knights of parliament and by the sober sages of justice, when the proudest ministers of the crown should recoil from those barriers which were then daily pushed aside with impunity.

There is a material distinction to be taken between the exercise of the king's undeniable prerogative, however repugnant to our improved principles of freedom, and the abuse or extension of it to oppressive purposes. For we cannot fairly consider as part of our ancient const.i.tution what the parliament was perpetually remonstrating against, and the statute-book is full of enactments to repress. Doubtless the continual acquiescence of a nation in arbitrary government may ultimately destroy all privileges of positive inst.i.tution, and leave them to recover, by such means as opportunity shall offer, the natural and imprescriptible rights for which human societies were established.

And this may perhaps be the case at present with many European kingdoms.